Scanned with Plustek OptikFilm 8200 series

[pentaxpete]

I had this film in my Leica M6 since last Christmas un-scanned so I took the opportunity to try out a 'Plustek OptikFilm ' 8000 series scanner from a camera club mate , at 3.600 DPI to see how it compares with my CANON 9000F Mk II at 2,400 DPI. It scanned with a 'Blueish' cast which I corrected in FastStone Image Viewer as I would in the darkroom with filters.
[/b]35mm f1.4 Summilux


50mm f2 Summicron

[Blazer0ne]

...

[pentaxpete]

I used Vuescan Professional with the Scanner set to 'Generic Colour Film' as that gives better results than trying to match the film with the Vuescan 'Pre-sets' . YES -- I am happy with the results but I cannot tell any 'Difference' between the Plustek and my Canon 9000F Mk II flatbed.

[Blazer0ne]

...

[cooltouch]

BlazerOne, at a minimum, I would suspect he would see an increase in image definition with the Plustek scanner. A difference between 3600 ppi and 2400 ppi should be noticeable. If he didn't see a difference, then it sounds to me like 2400 ppi or less was the possible resolution limit of the film. But from personal experience using flatbed scanneras at 2400 ppi and another scanner at 4000 ppi, if the film was a hi-rez film, like slides, there should be a substantial difference in resolved detail between these two resolutions.

[Blazer0ne]

...

[pentaxpete]

i think the PLUSTEK does give a higher resolution than the Canon 9000F Mk II -- I CAN see a difference now. I have to use the CANON for Medium Format though.

[cooltouch]

That Canon should work great for medium format. I have an Epson 4990, roughly equivalent to the Canon. It does a really nice job with my medium format shots, set to 2400 ppi.

These days, I dupe my 35mm slides and negs with my NEX 7 and a dupe rig I've cobbled together. It's 24.3mp sensor delivers 4000x6000 res images, which is plenty good enough for me.